No, because atheism has nothing to do with morals. Atheists can still simply say "X is wrong just because it is."

I don't see how that's good enough. Our hypothetical materialist who embezzled the money would shrug and say "You are such a nihilst. X is wrong just because it is, just the way the charge on an electron is negative just cuz. Nothing but convention.Wikipedia says about the nihilism position on murder: (in the same paragraph I linked to earlier)

Quote from: wikipedia

killing the individual was bad because it did not let the individual live, which was arbitrarily given a positive weighting.

"Arbitrary positive weighting." "Just because it is." You're speaking the same language.

* So why is stuff bad under Christianity, then, huh? Isn't "God says so" just as arbitrary as "Because!"

Two parts to this:This seems to be jumping ahead a bit. All I'm saying is that under atheism, I don't see how you can convince certain bad-apple materialists that certain stuff is bad, or evil, or conversely, that certain ethical ideas are true. The best you can do is that they're convenient. Christianity isn't part of that conversation.

You are the one jumping ahread. One could just as easily say "under capitalism" instead of "under atheism". You have yet to demonstrate that theism is relevant to the objectivity (or lack thereof) of morality in the first place, so it is premature to point out that atheism offers no objective moral standard. If neither atheism nor theism offer this, then atheism is not responsible for lacking it.

But, since people want to know.... the short answer is, you're trying to sneak atheism into Christianity. If God is a made up entity existing nowhere but our own minds, then of course "God says so" is arbitrary. However, in the question that you're asking, He's not. The question "Why is murder bad under Christianity" can be restated as "IF, assuming, presupposing, let it be for a moment, suppose that it really is the case that the Christian God IS..., THEN why is murder wrong?" And of course the answer is that the Christian God defines morality, and murder can quite succintly be wrong because He says so.

The Christian god defines what is morally right with respect to its own values. What I am driving at is, what makes those values any more objective than any other set of values? Against what standard can your god's morals be judged to be "right"?

If you say that they are the standard, then that is your own subjective selection of a standard, and doesn't answer the question. Another person could select a different standard. What you would reduce Christianity to, in this case, is a subjective preference. Christianity would simply be an arbitrary assignment of "God" as the standard to which people adhere.

Let me put it this way. Two materialists are chatting, and one of them is bragging about his embezzlement of $10,000,000 from his employer. The theft is so perfect there's no evidence. The other is shocked, of course, but I contend that he can't give a good reason, using just materialism, why the first ought to be condemned.Two Christians are chatting, and one of them is bragging about his embezzlement of $10,000,000 from his employer. The theft is so perfect there's no evidence. The other is shocked, of course, and he can appeal to Christianity to explain why the first ought to beg for forgiveness from his employer.

The reason why the second situation is functionally different from the first is not that the second one involves Christianity. The functional difference is that in the 2nd situation, the two individuals supposedly share values. What if the Christian disagreed with his or her god re: theft? Then they would have different values, and your scenario wouldn't work. What if the materialists shared values? Then the one would be able to appeal to those shared values to denounce the other.

These shared values need not be "objective" (whatever that means in the context of value). They need merely to be shared. You are arguing for something other than that for which you say you are arguing.

I can define the conditions under which I'll keep posting in this thread. If you value an opinion that is not an echo of your own atheistic beliefs, then I want you to respond to my points. But hey, if you want to put your head in the sand and pretend the morality question is settled, all you have to do is keep ignoring what I say and I'll go away.

Just once, I'd like to see a christian come in here that didn't play the "atheists are stubborn and pigheaded about the bible" game. It's been said a gazillion times before, but I'll say it again; most atheists on this board, myself included, are former christians. We believed that god was good and that he gave us laws to live by. Then we sat down and read the bible cover-to-cover, and saw that it wasn't true. There is nothing moral about someone that drowns the whole world, there is nothing moral about someone that condones genocide, slavery, misogyny and the dashing of babies heads against rocks.

Wherever our morality may come from, it is most certainly not from the god of the bible. Simply reading through the book will prove this to be the case.

"Well, OK." the hypothetical materialiest muses. "If that's all they are then I can't really see any reason why I ought to follow them, for Pete's sake, especially the inconvenient ones.

Consequences. We are not bees. There is always a tension between the goals of the group and the goals of the individuals in the group. That is why breaking moral rules have consequences. If there are no consequences, there are no rules. Nobody follows morality just because they think they are objectively true. If xians are what you say they are, then they only reason they do not murder is fear of punishment in the afterlife. We atheists tend to be a little more practical and prefer the punishment of the guilty to be more tangible. So we prefer punishment in the here and now.

You certainly haven't convinced my hypothetical materialist that there's any reason he ought to follow the no-stealing thing (or even the no-murdering thing), especially if he can get away with it. You especially didn't "convince me that there is any moral value, or any truth, in the statement "Murder is bad?", the way I asked if you could in my post earlier. You did in fairness give him a neat explanation about where the rule might have come from.

That is because the person you are hypothetically posing is a psychopath. They cannot be talked out of anything. You still do not seem to understand the point of morals. You still keep asking for objectivity when our whole point is, there is none.

Why would "murder is bad because the god that I believe in, but have absolutely no evidence of, much less proof that it's anything more than a figment of my imagination, says it's bad" convince anyone that "murder is bad"? How are you convinced? I don't get it? Explain the logical and critical thinking behind that one? I'd really like to know. Convince me that "some guy says that some god he believes is real says x is bad, so that's very convincing to me" is convincing?

If God is a made up entity existing nowhere but our own minds, then of course "God says so" is arbitrary. However, in the question that you're asking, He's not. The question "Why is murder bad under Christianity" can be restated as "IF, assuming, presupposing, let it be for a moment, suppose that it really is the case that the Christian God IS..., THEN why is murder wrong?" And of course the answer is that the Christian God defines morality, and murder can quite succintly be wrong because He says so.

Here is where it falls apart for you. You say that God defines morality and that He also says murder is bad. But what if we can point to you MANY instances in the very word of God (the bible) where God specifically condones, encourages and joyfully partakes in mass murder? And what about all the times in history where one group takes up arms against another in war, and God does nothing to stop it? How can you make an objective claim that murder is bad when your God partakes of it on da' regular, and chooses not to intervene when war breaks out? Can you not point to specific points in the bible where murder is happily condoned? Of course you can.

More succinctly, if a man points a gun at you and you say, "Don't kill me because God says it's wrong", if the man says "God condones murder on massive scales in the bible", what will you say to him? Or what if he says "If God doesn't want you to die, He will make my gun misfire." Are you willing to take your chances? Or what if he said, "God spoke to me like he spoke to Jephthah. He told me to kill you." What fun...

Here is a clear cut explanation as to how we KNOW you don't get your morality from God. Do you believe that everything that God does in the bible is morally right? I doubt it. If you did, then you would happily smash children into rocks, kill homosexuals, destroy the town I live in, etc. So in essence, your morality is JUST as subjective as ours, yet you assert that it's not because SOME of the book agrees with you. You pick and choose those passages out of the bible that back up what what YOU think is morally correct, and then you discard the rest. Why do you do that? Why would you do that if morality was objective? Isn't the bible the very word of God? Or are you honestly going to say that YOUR interpretation of the bible is correct in every way and supported 100% by all the passages in it? How can you possibly stand on that premise with the bible as your source? Unless you are going to point to another source (non-bible) for where you get your morality, it's laughable.

And worse yet, which version of your God should we believe in? Yours? The bible is so vague as it is possible to theologically defend the idea of slavery, homophobia, genocide etc etc. Maybe we should adopt the morality of the WBC, who scream out God hates Fags and protest soldier funerals? Or should we adhere to the Catholicism of the Nazi regime and the current version that says it is better to stop the use of condoms even if AIDS is the result? Or maybe the Christian God in the eyes of the KKK? Or maybe we should start killing people who don't keep the Sabbath. Whether you like it or not, all of those positions are THEOLOGICALLY DEFENSIBLE positions from the bible. You CAN defend them using biblical passages. Yet somehow, you think YOU have it right that murder is objectively bad?

This is why the Christian version of morality is VASTLY more dangerous than atheism. Because some of the most horrible things that men do to other men are done as a result of a specific type of interpretation of the bible. Why were heretics burned at the stake for hundreds of years? The bible. Why were women thought of as second class citizens for centuries? The bible. Why do people bomb abortion clinics? The bible. Why does the WBC protest soldier funerals? The bible. Yes, atheist leaders have done terrible things, but that only goes to show that all people can be bad... Christian or not. Christianity just gives some bad people a way to justify the bad things they do. What is more dangerous than a mistaken belief that a supernatural sky man is asking someone to do something for the glory of God?

Subjective morality has its bad points too. I acknowledge them. I don't even like it all that much. But it's simply the way it is.

Two materialists are chatting, and one of them is bragging about his embezzlement of $10,000,000 from his employer. The theft is so perfect there's no evidence. The other is shocked, of course, but I contend that he can't give a good reason, using just materialism, why the first ought to be condemned.Two Christians are chatting, and one of them is bragging about his embezzlement of $10,000,000 from his employer. The theft is so perfect there's no evidence. The other is shocked, of course, and he can appeal to Christianity to explain why the first ought to beg for forgiveness from his employer.

In both cases, the man who stole the money thought it was right, and the other thought it was wrong. That is evidence that morality is subjective, is it not? Otherwise all of them would have thought it wrong.

You can appeal all you want to your sky man. The FACT is, this man will get away with the crime if neither of the 2 turn him in. The FACT is, both of them thought differently about the crime. The FACT is God will not punish him in any provable way at all. If we follow the facts, where do they lead? Do they lead to the idea of an objective source of morality or one that acknowledges that everyone has different versions?

This all stems from your belief in God MiC. You want the world to be a certain way. You want there to be objective morality, because it fits with your version of theism. We get that. That doesn't make it true. Truth doesn't care what we want. Stop looking at what you believe and what you want, and start observing the facts. Accepting where the facts lead is a grown-up thing to do. Nobody can point to an objective set of rules or laws that govern our morality for everyone. They just aren't there. But we can explain how our morality got there, and what benefits we get out of it. And that's all we really need to know. You believe your morals are grounded in objectivity... but if that doesn't fit with the facts, why do you think it's still logical to hold that position?

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

If God is a made up entity existing nowhere but our own minds, then of course "God says so" is arbitrary. However, in the question that you're asking, He's not. The question "Why is murder bad under Christianity" can be restated as "IF, assuming, presupposing, let it be for a moment, suppose that it really is the case that the Christian God IS..., THEN why is murder wrong?" And of course the answer is that the Christian God defines morality, and murder can quite succintly be wrong because He says so.

Here is where it falls apart for you. You say that God defines morality and that He also says murder is bad. But what if we can point to you MANY instances in the very word of God (the bible) where God specifically condones, encourages and joyfully partakes in mass murder? And what about all the times in history where one group takes up arms against another in war, and God does nothing to stop it? How can you make an objective claim that murder is bad when your God partakes of it on da' regular, and chooses not to intervene when war breaks out? Can you not point to specific points in the bible where murder is happily condoned? Of course you can.

This argument doesn't necessarily work on theists. They just say, "anything god does is good/legal". So if god condoned killing people, then those killings were, using their line of reasoning, by default not "illegal" and thus "not murder". Basically, the formula is like this: x is bad UNLESS god does it, where x can be anything, from raping people to killing babies to even the holocaust.

No, because atheism has nothing to do with morals. Atheists can still simply say "X is wrong just because it is."

I don't see how that's good enough. Our hypothetical materialist who embezzled the money would shrug and say "You are such a nihilst. X is wrong just because it is, just the way the charge on an electron is negative just cuz. Nothing but convention.Wikipedia says about the nihilism position on murder: (in the same paragraph I linked to earlier)

Quote from: wikipedia

killing the individual was bad because it did not let the individual live, which was arbitrarily given a positive weighting.

"Arbitrary positive weighting." "Just because it is." You're speaking the same language.

Really? I thought nihilists simply had to believe that nothing was intrinsically bad. An atheist can still believe something is intrinsically bad.

What if the atheist changed it to "Murder is wrong because I believe it's wrong" instead?

You shouldn't have bothered, as the rest is going to be treated mostly as a smokescreen.

So, when Christians talk about the blind faith required to be an atheist, it's this kind of stuff that we're talking about. Frankly if I take the trouble to write up a post that takes the points you made and responds to them in an attempt to carry forward the conversation, and you pick one sentence out of it, I'm really not sure I want to continue in this thread. It's tough to see any value therein when people ignore the majority of what I say. That "smokescreen" was the main point of the whole post.

So to clarify, anything the Christian God says is morally right is morally right?Yes or No?

I really don't want to let the thread get off track. I can almost hear you flipping through your bible, just hoping I say yes so you can hit me with 2 Kings 2:23 (seems to be a favorite of this board) or Leviticus 25:44-46, or Deuteronomy 17:12, or a couple others. (Not that you're predictable or anything. Heavens no.) However 2 Timothy 3:16 is also in the bible, so... I'll play along. Under these conditions:

* THIS thread we use to continue discussing atheism and how it by necessity (I contend) collapses into nihilism.

* You start another thread were you pick your favorite verse in the bible and I'll defend it. (Might I recommend Psalms 137:9? That's a good one.) You get one verse (or a continuguous chunk of 2 or 3 is fine) but no more, there's only one of me. I'd also prefer only a couple of atheists in the thread instead of 8,591 trying to win by sheer quantity as opposed to superior quality.

* If you don't agree to these terms then I'm outta here. I'm not going to post in a thread where the faithful are to blind the words in front of their noses.

All of the above post was unnecessary to answering Azdgari's question. I don't care about your other things right now; I will go back to them later so I am not dealing with your shotgun of 20 arguments. I've seen people do this, and they ignore the parts of a post that trap them, only to come back to the issue fresh as another distraction. Not dealing with that possibility. Stick with the one issue.

I am not throwing Bible quotes at you, you are Christian and you have obviously already rationalized those. They may come up later but the question now is:Is everything the Christian God deems morally right necessarily morally right?

We have been though this with theists many times. If all that keeps a person from going postal and killing everyone in sight is fear of an invisible being, I guess that person should hold onto that fear with both hands, for all of our sakes. But if people manage to be good without that fear, why do they need religion?

There are many examples of highly religious, even Christian societies that are not the best places to live. Mexico and Colombia, for example, are very religious and have high poverty and crime rates. And there are a number of predominantly atheist societies that are peaceful, prosperous, generous, well-educated and quite safe. Denmark and Japan come to mind.

So, morality does not necessarily come from religion, and non-religious people can be quite moral. Secular societies seem to do at least as well as religious ones-- the secular countries of Scandinavia are not exactly hellholes of evil. And religion does not seem to automatically make societies good--many South American and African countries have many serious social problems despite being full of religious people.

Religion can even retard social development because suffering people are told that everything is god's will and they have to wait for their reward in heaven. Atheists know that there is only this life, so we have to make it as good as we can for everyone. Some of the most untrustworthy and horrible people I have known were highly religious bible believing Christians. I am an atheist and am far more moral than any of them.

To cut to the chase, MiT: On what basis do you agree with your god's moral opinions?

Wouldn't it be MiC?

I appreciate the directness. Let me equally forthright.You may think this is a huge concession (maybe it is) but I agree with His moral precepts on probably the same grounds you do. Murder, theft, adultery, just feel... icky. Wrong, somehow. I certainly don't read the ten commandments, slap my hand on my forehead, and go "Oh! So murder is wrong! Who'd a thunk it?"

So... no. I don't "get" my morality from the bible. The bible is a lot more than a rulebook, in my opinion.

This next bit is important, though.

Were I a materialist, I feel I would have to logically conclude that those feelings carry no more weight than my feelings about choclate ice cream. Sure, they're real enough, and sure, someone who shares those feelings I could convince that embezzling was wrong, but there's no "ought" there. There's nothing in material reality that in any way affects the "rightness" or "wrongness" of murder. If Murder really is wrong, there's got to be something else out there that makes it wrong. Morality is just arbitrary rules we have for acceptable ways to alter various patterns of matter, there is nothing else it can be. Anyone who disagreed with me about various ethical positions is disagreeing about an opinion, nothing more. In short, I'd have to commit myself to nihilism. Fellow materialists could go on and on (and on, and on, and on, and on) about atrocities in the bible, atrocities commited in the name of the bible, and it'd get a big fat "meh" out of me. Who cares? Some people think it's ok to kill Jewish people, some think it's ok to kill heritics, some think it's ok to kill 'em all. It's all an opinion, nobodies right or wrong.

Were I a Christian (and hey! I am!) or any sort of deist really, then I think there's a way out of nihilism. But I think materialists must be nihilists if they are to be consistent.

What about you? On what basis do you agree with me that Murder is wrong? Or do you disagree, and agree with my hypothetical materialist, that murder isn't wrong after all?

« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 03:45:00 PM by MathIsCool »

Logged

Why not name the website ... "whywontGodallowlaserstoshootoutofmyeyespewpewpew.com"

Were I a materialist, I feel I would have to logically conclude that those feelings carry no more weight than my feelings about choclate ice cream.

Don't those opinions about murder feel different from opinions on ice cream, though? It's one thing to relegate all opinion to subjective rumination, it's quite another to stand next to someone as they say "Gee, I wonder if your baby would taste good with honey mustard or chipotle dipping sauce?"

Although I take your point, I object to the idea that brute materialism results in "everything is subjective".

Logged

- SMRT AdminCompared to this thread, retarded midget wrestling for food stamps is the pinnacle of human morality.-- Ambassador Pony

Do you understand that your entire thought line rests on the idea that you don't like the implications of what we say? That you haven't tried, not for one minute, to disprove the facts. You have just tried to say how terrible the implications are.

Why don't you try to use factual evidence to back up your case? What facts can you bring to the table (that we can observe from our world) that lead to the conclusion that morality is objective?

If you can't bring any, then is it still logical to deny subjective morality solely on the basis of the implications it holds?

The argument of whether or not it is "better" to live under the delusion of objective morality (truth be damned), should not be part of this discussion at all.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

Do you understand that your entire thought line rests on the idea that you don't like the implications of what we say? That you haven't tried, not for one minute, to disprove the facts. You have just tried to say how terrible the implications are.

My thoughtline rests on the idea that you don't like the implications of what you say. I'm arguing the implications of strict materialism are nihilism. Nothing more. Agree you're a nihilist and I'll go away.

« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 03:49:34 PM by MathIsCool »

Logged

Why not name the website ... "whywontGodallowlaserstoshootoutofmyeyespewpewpew.com"

SO you would doubt your own god he disagreed with you?What does that say about your faith?

On a side note, you ever heard of S.P.A.G.? It was a pet idea of this forum a while back.

When did I doubt my own God? I just doubted some random vision you posited with some guy who said he was God. Our bible says we oughta practice discernment, y'know. (What, did he glow? Long white beard maybe?)

Self Projection As God? Yeah, I've heard of it. You think I'm guilty?

« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 03:58:21 PM by MathIsCool »

Logged

Why not name the website ... "whywontGodallowlaserstoshootoutofmyeyespewpewpew.com"

I told you you had a vision of god. You doubted immediately. Now you are asking for evidence. I feel like you are the Atheist.Stop dodging. If God told you Murder was fine, you ought to do it weekly... would you? Why?If you say no you are guilty of S.P.A.G., and are arbitrarily giving weight to your opinions to justify your morality, which, by your own definition, makes you nihilist.

My thoughtline rests on the idea that you don't like the implications of what you say. I'm arguing the implications of strict materialism are nihilism. Nothing more. Agree you're a nihilist and I'll go away.

I already admitted I don't like the implications. Materialism leads to Nihilism as Christianity leads to biblical literalism. Are you a biblical literalist?

Edit, you still haven't used any evidence to back up your case for objective morality. I wait for that.

« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 04:22:12 PM by JeffPT »

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

I already admitted I don't like the implications. Materialism leads to Nihilism as Christianity leads to biblical literalism. Are you a biblical literalist?

Thanks as well.

No, I'm not a die-hard biblical literalist. I fail to see how that makes me, a follower of the real Jesus Christ who really lived 2,000 years ago and really died under Pontius Pilate, not a Christian. Nor do I see what this has to do with objective morals.

Logged

Why not name the website ... "whywontGodallowlaserstoshootoutofmyeyespewpewpew.com"